The latest news and information from Michigan Lawyers Weekly

Main menu

Post navigation

I really, totally and wholly dissent

An intensifier word, according to an amalgam of several dictionary definitions, is a modifier that has little meaning standing alone but serves to intensify the word or phrase that it modifies.

The common wisdom is that legal writers should avoid the temptation to use intensifiers. But all of us cave in once in a while, and, according to some recent scholarship, that tends to happen more when defending a losing position.

An analysis of United States Supreme Court opinions written between 2006 and 2009 shows that to varying degrees, when the justices are writing minority opinions, the intensifiers flow more frequently than in their majority opinions.

Brigham Young University statistics professor William Christensen, and Lance Long of Stetson University Law arrived at this conclusion by determining how often the justices use intensifiers such as “very,” “obviously,” “clearly,” “patently,” “absolutely,” “really,” “undoubtedly,” “certainly,” “totally” and “wholly.”

Their study, reported in a recent issue of the Oregon Law Review, revealed that justices in the minority used significantly more intensifiers.

Christensen and Long have developed the theory of “argumentative threat” as a possible explanation.

“[W]hen faced with an argument that a legal writer believes —or knows — she is likely to lose, the writer will tend to write in a style that uses more intensifiers,” according to the study.

Christensen explains further: “When you’re writing as a loser, you’re in a defensive crouch. When it’s pretty clear to the rest of the Court that your argument is not so clear, you’re increasingly likely to use terms such as ‘clearly’ to defend your case.”

Some specific findings:

Justice Antonin Scalia and Chief Justice John Roberts use intensifiers at the highest rate overall.